Change is Order

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
1

Change is Order

  1. The movement of X from point A to point B is the repetition of X; this repetition is symmetry.

  2. The movement of X from point A to point B is the repetition of the point of change in movement as A and B; this repetition is symmetry.

  3. The movement of thought X from point A to point B is the repetition of thought X; this repetition is symmetry.

  4. The movemwnt of thought X from point A to point B is the repetition of the point of change of the thought as A and B; this repetition is symmetry.

  5. The point of change is the emergence of a limit and the dissolution of another, in these respects there is the superposition of opposites and differences and as such each is distinct by the act of change being a ratio of emergence to dissolution; this ratio is order.

  6. The repetition of the point of change is the identity of the limit itself, what exists across a continuum of emergence and dissolution of the limits it is composed of; this a fixed point pattern.

  7. The repetition of the point if change is the scaling of the fixed point limit across differing contexts; thus change is scaling.

  8. What remains is limit nested within the limits of emergence and dissolution thus what remains is a pure form from n-dimensions.

1 Like
2

raises hand How do you know if a repetition is an identity or iterated image?

3

follow up question… how do you know oppositions aren’t preserved rather than dissolved in at least some cases?

4

fragment (unless you meant of, not if, guh)… but then you have three options:
a) identity
b) iteration of image
c) mutually entailing/producing pattern

15 char

5

An image is repetition of form at a different scale.

A waterfall and image of a water fall may be different realities, but the form exists across the scales.

6

Identity is a question of scale.

X can be -Y as X with both as Z and neither as -Z.

There is opposition degree of difference, while the harmony is the containment of the contrast that allows identity to occur.

The difference of X and -Y can be observed as X and -Y while the absence of difference is the synthesis as Z and the absence of either is -Z.

Identity becomes emergence scale.

7

Not really:

Identity is an Identity.
An Iteration of Image is an Identity.
A mutual pattern is an identity.
What remains is scale.

8

Are you asking me what I mean by image, scaling, so forth, by acting like you don’t know what it means… because you want me to articulate it for whatever reason? I’m muting this thread.

9

No I am showing you that:

Identity
An Iteration of Image
A mutual pattern

Are all subject to being identities and your categories are merely scalings of that distinction.

You introduce a triad when in reality there is only a monadic scaling.

If you differ then:

Iteration of image and mutual patterns are non-sense as they have no identities.

You can mute if you wish, but you are the one who commented and I just provided a response.

10

Doesnt this all depend on your definition of order?
Cause i could as well state that just the mere fact that you have “change” in the equation, means that the system is in fact in chaos.
Now the system might be symmetrical meaning its not in a state where it ceases to be a system, but you could relegate order to a higher standard than this.

1 Like
11

You can claim that but we would require an “ordered definition of definition”.

The failure of pure relativism is that “definition” is used as a fixed point unquestioned. Under pure relativisism the “definition of definition” becomes relative and pure relativism ceases as the fixed point of “definition”, and “subjective” or “persepctive”, ceases and there is nothing to relate to…thus pure relativism is nullfied and what occurs is “the absolute of what occurs”.

1 Like
12

True enough, but that was kinda my point in and of itself too.
That a lot of it hinges on how you define it.

13

Distinction is the only invariant.

14

What if we make it about observers (of movement external to their boundaries) and perceivers (of movement internal to their boundaries) — and the 0 is the event horizon between them AND the light cone containing them (otherwise there can be no communication between them without assistance from someone whose light cone contains the whole)?

Is that mathable?

Thread still muted.

15

And what is an observer or perciever are but a set of repeating conditions that contains the void of attention itself?

The same void that is attention is the same void upon which attention places itself as the potentiality of the object.

What remains is a cyling void where the boundaries of the observed and observer are the limits between the voids. The limit is the scale of reality itself.